Question 1: Walter Lippmann was a journalist who believed that democracy asked too much of individual citizens. He believed that the knowledge needed to make educated decisions was not easily accessible to the public, and even if it was, the general public was neither interested nor involved in the political process to give a strong opinion. Lippmann portrayed a government that was out of sight, reach, and therefore mind. Since the government may seem hidden or concealed, many fail to see the steps or processes that are involved in policy making. In turn, not being able to fully observe the governmental system would discourage citizens from believing that they are able to have any significant impact as an individual. The idea of not being able to witness or influence an issue in politics will consequently lead to the entire issue being tossed out as something pertinent to an individual, and he or she will not process the idea any further. Even if a person was interested in policy and sought out political truths, Lippmann believed that most citizens were incompetent and that it would be more logical to leave the important decisions not up to an average citizen, but instead an elected official or expert. John Dewey was a Philosopher, Psychologist, and subsequently a teacher. He believed that the lack of success or progress of the public opinion was not due to the incompetence of the citizens, but instead the lack of resources that were provided to the public. John Dewey, being the positive and hopeful person that he was, believed in the possibly of reform, through better education. He felt that the people were too often betrayed by the leaders of the system, and could no longer sit back and count on only a select few to determine the direction the country would take. Even though he advocated higher education, Dewey suggested that it was neither the information nor research of an issue that the public need become familiar with, but instead he insisted that the people become better educated on ability to judge and process the knowledge shared with them. Citizens wouldn't need to know the logistics of a policy if they could understand the general direction of where an issue could lead the country. Dewey was a firm believer that if communication were improved, debates and discussion would become stronger and more progressive. This ideology played a large role in the development of the Public Library. Something that would offer free and equal opportunity to learn and progress seemed to be treasure Dewey sought out. Little did he know that the progression of the libraries would lead to the vast amount of shared information in the 21st century. Neither Lippmann's nor Dewey's ideologies were inaccurate. At the time these two were writing, America was going through one of the toughest times financially and mentally. World War 1 was not only proceeded by the infamous baby boom era, the 1920s were also a time when education in America could only improve. The slow, almost non-existent progress of education may have led Lippmann to his conclusions of the disinterest and incompetence of citizens to have a hand in important governmental decisions. It is understandable that after the First World War, it may have seemed more logical to trust experts with the political decisions, rather than focus on the possibility of educating the average citizens to develop stronger opinions and ideology. However, I strongly agree with Dewey in the sense that ignorance is not the fault of the citizen, but that of his or her government for not providing the opportunity for growth. By ignoring the opinions of even the most ignorant, the dream of Democracy would have meant nothing. Lippmann's seemingly pessimistic ideology was simply a safe route that didn't necessarily promote Democracy, rather a higher probability of stability. In the 21st century, we are very fortunate to have the internet at our fingertips. Any desirable piece of information that would have been nearly impossible to find in the 1920s, can be found in mere seconds with the use of today's top search engines such as Google or Bing. The mass amount of information as well as variety of sources gives the people many different perspectives to help form an opinion. The creation of Social Networks, such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn, would have made Dewey very proud. Being able to share thoughts, experiences, and news with millions of others across the Earth surely backed the theory that we can become interested and motivated with improved tools of communication. However, even with the advancements in technology and communication, Lippmann and Dewey's debate is still alive. We see the debate arise with the recent national issue of health reform. Most of the opinions that are formed about healthcare reform are not formed under decent conditions. The topic of healthcare is one that is broad and important enough to motivate and interest people. With that being said, the media noticed the large public interest in the topic as well, and almost instantly the media began to spark debates. Hearing one side banter with the opposing side does not benefit the people if the people lack factual background knowledge. Instead of debating, deliberation would help present the facts, educate the people on the actual opinions of others, and ignite progression. Healthcare reform is an issue that affects all of us, not just the select few that Lippmann would have suggested make a decision. It is critical to obtain an accurate public opinion on the issue so that it can be assured that people are well represented and informed.

Question 2: James Fishkin explained, "An ordinary poll just gives the public soundbites and headlines. A deliberative poll tries to show what the people would think, if they had a good chance to think about it, and they were effectively motivated to think about it." Deliberative Polling is when random participants are chosen to deliberate about an issue. The idea is that the participants will represent the population better than the officials or experts, and they will develop stronger and more accurate opinions. Some conditions that call for Deliberative Polling include, but aren't limited to, the lack of background knowledge, instant gut responses, unstable answers, and the lack of the opportunity to discuss. If Deliberative Polling was used, background knowledge would increase as opinions would be shared and discussed. The Condorcet Jury Theorem tells us that, (insert quote) (Lecture 4,2-4,3). Deliberative Polling would also prevent the instant gut responses that tend to be inaccurate or emotional, and instead give a better representation of the actual opinions of the people. The stability of an opinion will grow if Deliberative Polling was used due to increased confidence and factual knowledge. Having your answers or opinions change due to instability can cause major confusion as well as discourage the people from learning. Consistency of an opinion will strengthen as the facts and support increase, allowing more concrete beliefs to set in. With Deliberative Polling, people are given the opportunity to discuss opinions with others. It is indicative that people learn from each other, and without the opportunity to discuss beliefs, the learning process is limited. Today's society struggles with many issues including healthcare, human rights, taxation, and others. Two specific problems that I feel should be deliberated upon are unemployment rates and immigration. Both issues are pertinent in a vast majority of countries, yet many have left the responsibility of solving the issues to officials or experts. In the film, Europe in One Room, a man from Finland spoke about the country's failure to retain jobs, even with a highly skilled workforce. This is an issue that we have seen in the United States in recent years, and it continues to grow and disturb our economic balance. A woman from the United Kingdom also mentioned the loss of manufacturing jobs to sweatshops, which is another problem we have seen develop in America. Job retention is important in any economy and a solution must be found, otherwise the sweatshops will increase along side of wage rates. Immigration is another issue that many countries face, but continue to debate the options, instead of creating new ones. One specific example mentioned in the film was the issue of expanding the European Union. The decision of including Russia as part of the EU, is too important to discuss without hearing as many opinions as possible. Instead of increasing minimum wage or manipulating pensions, I believe that Deliberative Polling would shine light on the seriousness of the issue, while inciting people to discuss and learn from each other. Understanding that other counties are dealing with the same issues should help encourage deliberation with those countries. The problem seems to be that the ones deliberating, are too out of touch with the lives of the ordinary citizens. If that is the case, what James Fishkin accomplished with his project, is just the beginning of an entirely new concept of democracy. The power and voice must be given back to the people and in order to progress as a society, we must move forward together and learn from each other. The classic saying, "Two heads are better than one" is a perfect example of why deliberating is better than debating. The usual approach to public opinion would be measuring the raw opinions of the people. Raw opinions are often uneducated, and are created without any discussion of the topic. With Deliberative Polling, people can develop more sustainable, factual, and complete opinions only after deliberating or discussing with others that have different views. By using Deliberative Polling, society can find answers that have been sought out for many years, by simply learning from each other. John Dewey enabled us to see the possibility of the progression of society, it is our responsibility to enact it.